> Christianity considers any sexual activity other than heterosexual sex for procreation within marriage to be sinful,
Mostly true, except the "for procreation only" part. That's specific to Cathlicism.
Protestant doctrine tends to be "anything goes, so long as it's in marriage", with the implication that marriage is heterosexual.
> and female sexuality to be inherently corrupting because "it was Eve who tempted Adam in the Garden of Eden."
I don't know of any non-sectarian modern Christian group that think like this. I don't think it was even current thought at the time of the Reformation.
> The Christian dogma
You are, once again, talking about Catholicism. No other denomination calls their teaching "dogma", because only Catholicism claims to be infallible. And for that reason, any serious error in their dogma is nearly impossible to excuse without some serious mental gymnastics. Other denominations can go to the Bible and point to a passage showing some attitude was wrong, change their doctrine and move on. But not Catholicism.
I also heard these things in sociology class at school, but they are outdated and partially incorrect. And it's a very anachronistic interpretation of history.
> That isn't "sex positive" in any commonly understood sense of the term.
No indeed. Modern Christians aren't either. But that's not what the GP was referring to. What you got was women actually being consulted on who they should marry, getting basic human rights and so on. Which, at the time of the first century A.C., was rather revolutionary. A lot of these were weakened over time by Catholic (and also some Protestant) culture, but treating people like people is very much a big message in the Bible.
Another big message in the Bible is restraint, so of course Christianity can never be fully "sex positive" in the modern anything-goes sense of the term.
It works as a fork deterrent; forks can't easily prove they are still correct without the test suite, so if a company needs to tweak SQLite for any reason, they are better off paying for the tests so they know their tweaks won't break anything.
Because the whole goal is to not need any sort of "pointer discipline". The way he does it, you can store as many pointers to the arena as you want without keeping track of them, as long as they don't survive the deallocation of the arena.
One example would be having a big graph inside the arena. Pointers to other elements can just be plain pointers.
With "conventional RAII" you need to know if your pointer is the only pointer left to know whether to call the destructor. That requires some sort of pointer tracking.
> With "conventional RAII" you need to know if your pointer is the only pointer left to know whether to call the destructor. That requires some sort of pointer tracking.
That's not really conventional in terms of RAII - this is called a shared-ptr what you're describing. In "conventional RAII" there is no pointer tracking, RAII serves the purpose of releasing the resource what that is - it doesn't have to be anything, and most of the time it isn't since many classes aren't resource classes anyway.
Now I understand. The approach described in the article above allows shared semantics (not only unique owner like with unique_ptr and vector) with little overhead. But some overhead is still present - destructors are called via indirection and thus can't be inlined.
You can install full uBlock Origin in the Orion browser, on iOS. It also has decent built-in ad blocking (though uBlock Origin is still better).
I had been thinking for a long time to switch to Android (GrapheneOS, probably) when my current iPhone 13 dies, but this whole thing with "sideloading" on Android is making me reconsider. If I can't have the freedom I want either way, might as well get longer support, polished animation and better default privacy (though I still need to opt-out of a bunch of stuff).
AOSP releases are going to stop (or become late and cursory like Darwin releases), and new Pixels will not be able to run non-Google-certified operating systems :)
They have already shown themselves to be both able and willing.
Hopefully the backlash from this current decision will delay their plans long enough for GrapheneOS, Lineage and others to figure out how to work around it somehow, which is why I'm eagerly watching where this is going.
I can't confirm this yet but with Google refusing to provide device trees for new Pixels things definitely look headed that way; they're at least starting to make installing an alternate OS difficult. The Graphene devs are trying to set things up with a handset manufacturer to ship a GrapheneOS phone, but good luck connecting that thing to a US carrier (who allowlist handsets and often limit the allowlist to models they sell directly).
With all the things google is doing for custom os last few years ( play protect, no major updates to asop and bundling updates to closed source google libraries etc). It is not speculation it is predicting with high certainty. Google wants custom os market to die and they are doing it brick by brick.
We should Open our eyes and look at the timeline and realise it is not speculation and actual reality before it will be too late.
Source: i am an owner of device with custom os and i know things i have to do to fix broken apps.
They didn't. They implemented the WebExtensions API for WebKit. It's not complete (e.g. Stylus doesn't work yet), but it's enough to run uBlock Origin.
If you are already considering the AGPL, I'd like to suggest the EUPL. It also covers SaaS, is copyleft (forbids nonfree forks), but non-viral (can link to nonfree software), a lot easier to read, and also doesn't have the "bad name" some people attach to the GPL family.
I can't speak to how well it fits in your usecase. There are too many ways to do monetization, and I don't know which one you have in mind. But copyleft at least stops other entities from monetizing without sharing their contributions, so if you want to keep it open source, that's my recommendation.
It was originally designed to be used by government software in the EU. AFAIK, it doesn't really get used for much else, but it fills a niche not covered by the GPL family, which is weak/non-viral copyleft (as the LGPL provides), plus handling SaaS in a reasonable way (as the AGPL provides).
Copyleft protects against proprietary forking, and also assures the community you can't close the source in the future. Weak/non-viral copyleft makes it so you can still link it to proprietary software, so you could sell integrations (non-LSP) or closed-source plugins.
LGPL and GPL licensed software can be provided over a network with proprietary changes. The AGPL and EUPL both close that hole. Every change to the modules covered by the EUPL must be open sourced, even in that case.
If your intention is to monetize the LSP itself, open source is probably not what you want. It's fundamental to open source that anyone can use it for any purpose, and also fork it. Permissive licenses like the MIT license allow relicensing to a proprietary license later (see Redis) but that causes problems with the community (see Redis), and is nearly guaranteed to cause a fork.
As a Brazilian, I'm a bit torn on this issue. On the one hand, our social media regulations are terrible, are being approved without due process, and will certainly be used for (political) censorship. On the other hand, it's annoying that the US has to interfere, and concerning that they even can interfere in the first place.
Social media is over rated. Ask Assange and Snowden.
What happens on social media is of the herd, by the herd, for the herd. As Nietzsche would say like organized religion it produces nothing but a herd or slave morality.
Give me one example of a social media regulation being approved without "due process" or whatever that means. It's annoying when I stub my toe on the couch or when I drop my slice of bread butter-first. It's a criminal attack on the sovereignty of another nation when the US tries to interfere.
> Brazil’s supreme court has ruled that social media platforms can be held legally responsible for users’ posts, in a decision that tightens regulation on technology giants in the country.
> Companies such as Facebook, TikTok and X will have to act immediately to remove material such as hate speech, incitement to violence or “anti-democratic acts”, even without a prior judicial takedown order
Twitter was blocked immediately, without a public hearing or appeal process.
> In early May 2023, when the bill was about to be approved, Google and Telegram used their own platforms to express their opposition to the bill to their Brazilian users, and soon after were forced to back down by government institutions.
>The justice, Alexandre de Moraes, temporarily banned Elon Musk’s social media platform X last year after the billionaire refused to obey court orders to suspend certain accounts.
>On May 11, the president of the Chamber of Deputies requested that the directors of Google and Telegram in the country be investigated for their actions against the bill, describing these actions as forceful and abusive of the companies' hegemonic positions in the market, motivated by economic interests, and cited possible crimes against democratic institutions.
I'm not even a supporter of the current Brazilian administration, or even the political system for that matter, but these companies MUST obey court orders and MUST refrain from using their positions to attack governmental institutions or to prevent legislation that goes against their economic-political gains. They may be above US law, but they will have to lobby harder if they want to go over some of them here.
> On the one hand, our social media regulations are terrible, are being approved without due process, and will certainly be used for (political) censorship
Luckily this isn't happening in the US and if it is definitely isn't getting rapidly worse.
This is happening in the US, but only in the case of US domestic politics. The relevant tech companies actually provide an incredibly free and politically uncensored service in most of the world simply because they don't give a damn about politics in country X and the politicians in those countries don't have the leverage over them to make them care like US politicians do. Censoring costs money, and these companies would rather not do it. Citizens of many other countries, like Brazil, are the beneficiaries of this situation.
I've been trying to solve that for a few years now. The closest existing thing I could find in my research was acme from Plan 9, which actually does a pretty good job. The trick it uses is to have you click on a typed command instead of "sending" it, and it stays on your screen after it runs. So you can save several commands in a file, and that's a menu. Or clear the current document and print out several commands from a script, and that's a dynamic menu.
I highly recommend reading the paper[a] and trying it out. It's really interesting, and pretty easy to program.
The main problems with it are that it's too text-centered, and the interaction model is kinda weird for modern standards. I feel these are solvable (Plan B's Omero tried, with partial success), but they are hard to do without integrating the UI and the script into a single process, which feels like cheating. But well. If I ever get around to making a prototype, it will be here on Show HN.
Almost everyone I’ve seen using them on the web (myself included) does that. Very few people I’ve seen set them open.
(Lots of people use en-dashes set open instead of em-dashes set closed for the uses for which they are interchangeable as a matter of stylistic preference, though.)
Mostly true, except the "for procreation only" part. That's specific to Cathlicism.
Protestant doctrine tends to be "anything goes, so long as it's in marriage", with the implication that marriage is heterosexual.
> and female sexuality to be inherently corrupting because "it was Eve who tempted Adam in the Garden of Eden."
I don't know of any non-sectarian modern Christian group that think like this. I don't think it was even current thought at the time of the Reformation.
> The Christian dogma
You are, once again, talking about Catholicism. No other denomination calls their teaching "dogma", because only Catholicism claims to be infallible. And for that reason, any serious error in their dogma is nearly impossible to excuse without some serious mental gymnastics. Other denominations can go to the Bible and point to a passage showing some attitude was wrong, change their doctrine and move on. But not Catholicism.
I also heard these things in sociology class at school, but they are outdated and partially incorrect. And it's a very anachronistic interpretation of history.
> That isn't "sex positive" in any commonly understood sense of the term.
No indeed. Modern Christians aren't either. But that's not what the GP was referring to. What you got was women actually being consulted on who they should marry, getting basic human rights and so on. Which, at the time of the first century A.C., was rather revolutionary. A lot of these were weakened over time by Catholic (and also some Protestant) culture, but treating people like people is very much a big message in the Bible.
Another big message in the Bible is restraint, so of course Christianity can never be fully "sex positive" in the modern anything-goes sense of the term.
reply